Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

After listening to Spurrier post game I got the impression we won't see
the D use the 3-4 anymore. Reminds me of those deer whistles you used to see on motorcycles and cars a few years back. The whistles sold well but
the deer couldn't hear them so the whistles are all gone now. Great idea though...........in theory. I wonder if Charlie Strong may have invented the 3-4 and the deer whistle.

Scrapping the 3-4 at this point may be worse than continuing to play with it. They spent two camps trying to install it with a bunch of guys who never played the 4-3 system the staff used before. If they were going to scrap something it would probably be better served to scrap the 10 yard cushion they give receivers on every play.

Scrapping the 3-4 at this point may be worse than continuing to play with it. They spent two camps trying to install it with a bunch of guys who never played the 4-3 system the staff used before. If they were going to scrap something it would probably be better served to scrap the 10 yard cushion they give receivers on every play.

I really agree. Also, the defensive gameplan of the soft zone on 3rd and 5 or better must stop. Did anyone see Georgia, Alabama, LSU on 3rd and 5 or better they sent 6 to hurry the QB. Our coaching staff sent 3 against 5 OL and 1 RB. The A&M QB had all day.

I really agree. Also, the defensive gameplan of the soft zone on 3rd and 5 or better must stop. Did anyone see Georgia, Alabama, LSU on 3rd and 5 or better they sent 6 to hurry the QB. Our coaching staff sent 3 against 5 OL and 1 RB. The A&M QB had all day.

Scrapping the 3-4 at this point may be worse than continuing to play with it. They spent two camps trying to install it with a bunch of guys who never played the 4-3 system the staff used before. If they were going to scrap something it would probably be better served to scrap the 10 yard cushion they give receivers on every play.

Not sure how much ball you played, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp...coverages and packages remain identical in the mind to adjust to a personnel setup, which is all we are facing.

Besides, it's not like these guys coming in, or that we currently have, have never played football before with other formations...in middle school, JV, varsity high school football you play with various personnel setups.

It's really not that big of a deal. Only thing that really changes is some people used to getting more snaps in a 4-3 will see less in a 3-4, and vice versa.

I do agree with your last comment, that was painfully obvious and it bothered me when we came out in 2nd half with no adjustment there. My grandma could have gained 4-5 yards on a WR screen.

Not sure how much ball you played, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp...coverages and packages remain identical in the mind to adjust to a personnel setup, which is all we are facing.

Besides, it's not like these guys coming in, or that we currently have, have never played football before with other formations...in middle school, JV, varsity high school football you play with various personnel setups.

It's really not that big of a deal. Only thing that really changes is some people used to getting more snaps in a 4-3 will see less in a 3-4, and vice versa.

I do agree with your last comment, that was painfully obvious.

It is a big change for guys in terms of lining up and the LBs making sure they know their assignments. Not to mention whether or not the DT you'd put in is able to pull their own weight and is conditioned to play.

The benefit of the 3-4 is supposed to be in sending a different LB every play in hopes of confusing the OL but the problem Thursday is the DL couldn't tie anyone up enough for the LB rushing to make a difference. If they're the best we have at this point I'm not sure we want the guy who couldn't beat them out on the field more.

It is a big change for guys in terms of lining up and the LBs making sure they know their assignments. Not to mention whether or not the DT you'd put in is able to pull their own weight and is conditioned to play.

The benefit of the 3-4 is supposed to be in sending a different LB every play in hopes of confusing the OL but the problem Thursday is the DL couldn't tie anyone up enough for the LB rushing to make a difference. If they're the best we have at this point I'm not sure we want the guy who couldn't beat them out on the field more.

I have not watched a the game on my DVR yet. Just watched it at the game. It appeared to me that the DL and LB were not on the same page as far as gap responsibility. I saw the LB run right up the back of the DL guy not correct gap.

I have not watched a the game on my DVR yet. Just watched it at the game. It appeared to me that the DL and LB were not on the same page as far as gap responsibility. I saw the LB run right up the back of the DL guy not correct gap.

When you watch it back you'll see the LBs weren't on the same page with anyone including themselves. There was on play in the second half where A&M sent a man in motion and 3 of the LBs went to the same spot and just stood there looking at each other. It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

Not sure how much ball you played, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp...coverages and packages remain identical in the mind to adjust to a personnel setup, which is all we are facing.

Besides, it's not like these guys coming in, or that we currently have, have never played football before with other formations...in middle school, JV, varsity high school football you play with various personnel setups.

It's really not that big of a deal. Only thing that really changes is some people used to getting more snaps in a 4-3 will see less in a 3-4, and vice versa.

I do agree with your last comment, that was painfully obvious and it bothered me when we came out in 2nd half with no adjustment there. My grandma could have gained 4-5 yards on a WR screen.

Now, why do have to come off with insults like this? It's not a players' message board or a coaches' message board. It is a fans' message board. Whether or not one has playing time or not is irrelevant to one's football knowledge. Richard head.

__________________
"...the vast multitude rose as one man and stood on their feet, shouting, stamping, and filling all the place with such a waving of napkins that it was like a snowstorm..."
Mark Twain

Now, why do have to come off with insults like this? It's not a players' message board or a coaches' message board. It is a fans' message board. Whether or not one has playing time or not is irrelevant to one's football knowledge. Richard head.

I don't think he meant it that way. I think he just meant, and I agree, that many people sometimes think that when a team is a 3-4 team, that it cant play 4-3, or vice versa. A team only uses a base package, but they almost all can morph that into the other, or have other packages in that they can run.

The Texans base D is a 3-4, but I guarantee they have an entire chunk of their playbook that has Watt and Clowney at opposite sides in a 4-3. Whether they'll ever use it or not, who knows.

I don't think lining up and playing 4-3 would be that hard for USC. Or 4-2-5 like they normally played. Almost all teams can switch. Its not nearly as hard on D as it would be to switch philosophies on offense. Its just a matter of spending most practice reps that week working from that package, and not the 3-4.

Not sure how much ball you played, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp...coverages and packages remain identical in the mind to adjust to a personnel setup, which is all we are facing.

Besides, it's not like these guys coming in, or that we currently have, have never played football before with other formations...in middle school, JV, varsity high school football you play with various personnel setups.

It's really not that big of a deal. Only thing that really changes is some people used to getting more snaps in a 4-3 will see less in a 3-4, and vice versa.

I do agree with your last comment, that was painfully obvious and it bothered me when we came out in 2nd half with no adjustment there. My grandma could have gained 4-5 yards on a WR screen.

You are very correct. I played at CCU in a Multiple 8. We could shift from 4-3 to 3-4 very easily, or even from a 3-4 or 4-3 to a nickel or 5-2 if needed. As long as you have some DE's and LB's that can shift and play that 9 technique, its not hard at all.

Only difference in a Cover 2 in the 3-4 and 4-3 is the LB's have bigger zones to cover. Same areas of the field, just bigger areas to cover.

I personally hate the 3-4. You better have 3 stud DL's or you get no pass rush. USC went to it...because they weren't confident in their DL....and are surprised they didn't get a pass rush???? If your DL isn't that good...then the 3-4 is GUARANTEED to hurt your pass rush.

You are very correct. I played at CCU in a Multiple 8. We could shift from 4-3 to 3-4 very easily, or even from a 3-4 or 4-3 to a nickel or 5-2 if needed. As long as you have some DE's and LB's that can shift and play that 9 technique, its not hard at all.

Only difference in a Cover 2 in the 3-4 and 4-3 is the LB's have bigger zones to cover. Same areas of the field, just bigger areas to cover.

I personally hate the 3-4. You better have 3 stud DL's or you get no pass rush. USC went to it...because they weren't confident in their DL....and are surprised they didn't get a pass rush???? If your DL isn't that good...then the 3-4 is GUARANTEED to hurt your pass rush.

My point is we have a lot of young players who don't understand what hey are supposed to be doing as it is. To try and change things up on them now may not be the best thing. I'll agree that this team doesn't have the DT to run the scheme but that's what they've decided to go with.

I think the issue with USC in the 3-4 is the size of the players. Our NT are good size, but the DE sizes are lacking. Would have to move some of the DT to DE, and then on top of that the LB size is lacking, so would need to move some of the DE to LB.

I think the issue with USC in the 3-4 is the size of the players. Our NT are good size, but the DE sizes are lacking. Would have to move some of the DT to DE, and then on top of that the LB size is lacking, so would need to move some of the DE to LB.

This is exactly the answer, our defense has never looked so small out there. 6 of our starting 11 defensive players are LESS than 215 lbs, and three of the starters are under 200! One being 165lbs (al harris jr). Yes, they are athletic and quick but getting to a larger opposing player doesn't make him any easier to tackle and that disadvantage was clear. There were a few times a player on A&M's team appeared huge on tv while dragging our little guys down the field for y.a.c.